But before the nuclear industry and its supporters start popping their champagne, and the rest of us begin drowning our sorrows, let's have a reality check.

The French company EDF plan to build two European Pressurised Reactors (EPR). The EPR is billed by its designer AREVA as a state-of-art third generation reactor that puts all others in the shade. It is the biggest reactor ever designed (if not yet built).

You see, that's the problem. No-one has yet to successfully built an EPR. Just two are under construction in Europe right now.

The industry would say, euphemistically, that the EPR has had a difficult birth. In reality, it's been something of a nightmare. EDF say the Hinkley Point reactors will be ready by 2023. Personally, I'll believe it when I see it – and remember EDF are not actually going to take an investment decision until summer of 2014. For all the hype, the decision to go ahead hasn’t happened.

The cost of the Hinkley C project is a nightmare already. The British government, despite promising that no new nuclear reactors would be built with public subsidy, has guaranteed a price for the electricity EDF’s reactors will produce. For 35 years.

That price is twice what the price of electricity is in the UK right now. EDF stands to make big profits from a deal rigged in its favour.

"Ah," I hear you say, "but what it the price of electricity increases in the future, higher than the price guaranteed to EDF? EDF will make a loss."

To which I would say, almost certainly not. The agreement has done a great deal to ensure that the consortium's costs are covered including loan guarantees to ensure lenders get their money back. They don't depend at all on the power price being right to ensure their returns.

As with all nuclear projects, you have to dig through the hype to find the reality. Take the promises on jobs, for example. EDF says the HinkleyPointC project will create 25,000 jobs in Britain.

I've been watching the nuclear industry for a long time now and I’ve seen these job promises come and go. In 2009, the then UK government said building a new reactor would employ 9,000-10,000 workers. Where have the other 15,000 jobs come from?

In the end, it needn't and shouldn't be this way. Right now we're losing the battle against climate change and nuclear power is on the wrong side because aside from the waste and proliferation risks, the costs of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are falling by the day. In the UK it is expected that both offshore wind and solar power will be cheaper than nuclear by the time Hinkley C comes on line. Energy saving measures have been described as "the cleanest and cheapest energy is the energy that we don’t use". None of these need price fixing, disingenuous hype or a decade to put in place. They're ready to go. Right now.

By 2023, if these new reactors are supplying electricity to British consumers, they will be relics - over-priced, uncompetitive dinosaurs that stubbornly resist their own extinction. They'll find the world has moved on and they've been left behind by more evolved species.

Another form of subsidy is to allow old npp to operate even if they do not match the most uptodate safety standards. I believe nuclear industry was re...

Another form of subsidy is to allow old npp to operate even if they do not match the most uptodate safety standards. I believe nuclear industry was requesting this kind of subsidy for Hinkley C too.
One more thing: guaranteeing electricity price for a period of time is akin to selling a string of put options -- a risky deal that banks would tend to hedge as soon as possible, something I doubt the UK government will be able to do.
Furthermore, note that the put options that the UK is gifting to EDF is deeply "in the money" and some of the options have an expiry date as much in the future as 35 years. If you were to buy these put options from your bank they would cost you a fortune -- assuming that your bank is willing to take the risk.
Similarly, guaranteeing lenders is another subsidy: try asking your bank for a Credit Default Swap and you will see it does not come for free at all.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Zamm_
says:

The UK is already investing in wind, PV and efficiency (such as home insulation). However, unlike Germany, it does not believe in gassing its people a...

The UK is already investing in wind, PV and efficiency (such as home insulation). However, unlike Germany, it does not believe in gassing its people and the planet with coal when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
Germany could have used RE as an opportunity to stop / reduce operation of some of its oldest and deadliest lignite clunkers. Instead, it chose to shut down its relatively safe NPPs. This decision will cost thousands of lives and hundreds of megatons of CO2. No wonder the UK and other countries aren't enthused… Hinkley C is expensive, but there are better G3 deals, such as Tianwan, for example (VVER, 2 x 1 GW at $3.3 billion, 7-year build, good operational experience so far):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianwan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

Eh, Zamm_... beg your pardon...

- The UK electricity system currently continues to rely mainly on (imported) coal. The whole panic in the country is based on the fact that many of these coal stations are not only a problem concerning the upcoming EU emission limits, but simply so old they fall apart and need to be closed down this decade. And the UK is big in plans for new coal. Remember Kings North...

- The UK support systems for renewables have been extremely less efficient per GBP invested than the German ones. Also penetration of RE in the British electricity mix is a nightmare. Proposed strike prices for wind are over twice the prices for wind in Germany because of (in a few cases justified but mostly hyped up) NIMBY resistance and enormous amounts of red tape for wind projects... The current UK RE policies are shambles.

- The UK housing market lags behind ages comparing it with the continental one on energy efficiency.

- Solar hours are comparable with Germany (though many Britons might not believe that because of the rain) and thanks to the German and Chinese support to the development of PV, we are already below grid parity in Germany... Time for the UK to jump on that band wagon as well.

- And you continue to spread completely nonsense about the German coal situation, as we have discussed before in this blog comment section many times.

- As medicine you then propose Russian reactors that have an operational track record of a few years, were not under scrutiny of a tight regulator, and were not found well developed enough to construct anywhere else. Current VVER 1200 MIR / AES-2006 reactors cost over 5000 EUR/kWe, comparable with the EPR and AP1000.

As Fajnman said: PR has to make place for facts, because nature cannot be deceived.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Zamm_
says:

I'm quite amused at accusations of 'nonsense', given the fact said nonsense is stated in your own report:
http://www.greenpeace.de/f...

I'm quite amused at accusations of 'nonsense', given the fact said nonsense is stated in your own report:
http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/klima/Kohle-Gesundheitsreport.pdf
Quote "Lignite world champion Germany". No need for Feynman - Greenpeace PR trips on its own contradictions already!

Post a comment

To post a comment you need to be signed in.

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@Zamm_ Accuracy in argumentation has never been your strongest point. I referred to the coal situation in Germany - i did not deny the health effects of coal and indeed Greenpeace is one of the organisations bringing that to the forefront. Your mistake is in stating that nuclear is (to be) replaced with coal. That is a myth and you know it.
It is high time the UK starts developing a functioning system to introduce RE big way... in a decentralised way. I know that corporate interests stand in the way. Why don't you focus on that?

Post a comment

To post a comment you need to be signed in.

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Zamm_
says:

A "myth" based on a) publicly available data, among which your report, b) existing scientific consensus, and c) simple arithmetic is more accurately called - given the inevitable unknowns - a "best estimate" of the outcome of the German policy since 2011.
Additionally, stopping NPPs means Japan reneged on cutting its ENTIRE CO2 emissions 25% vs. 1990, and "committed" to an effective 3% rise instead (and to many additional deaths + diseases by air pollution). This is called a "fact".
In full denial mode, aren't you?

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

_Zamm... A myth based on lack of understanding of the German electricity market, i'd say. And you are well helped by the large power companies who have seen their market share shrink with 20%.

For the Japanese emissions. Time to do your maths and explain how the Japanese change of 28% total emissions can be explained by closing their 11% pre-2011 nuclear part of their mix. The change obviously has another background. It is called political will.

Apart from that, i'd say that every country with a lot of nuclear is threatened by the perspective of suddenly needing a lot of fossil - when it has one large nuclear accident. You do not appear to see that the current increase in fossil fuel use in Japan is *because* it was using nuclear power. Had it relied on renewables instead, it might have had to repair a few hundred wind turbines and lost an amount of roof-top PV in the tsunami. Oh yes, and 150 000 people could have stayed home to repair it.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Zamm_
says:

As long as the "German market" burns huge amounts of coal (ca. 280 TWh in 2012!), my calculation stands. Not only they chose coal to replace...

As long as the "German market" burns huge amounts of coal (ca. 280 TWh in 2012!), my calculation stands. Not only they chose coal to replace NPPs, but they intend to actually subsidise it with billions:
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2013-11/subventionen-kraftwerke-diw
Even worse, they're now questioning their "Energiewende":
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2013-11/koalitionsvertrag-energiewende
Obviously, they "don't understand their electricity market" either ;-)

As for Japan, the discrepancy is easily explained: their plan was to increase the NPP share quite massively (to ca. 50%, if I remember well), while also investing in RE and efficiency. Now, TEPCO wants to build a coal plant (!) in the region…

Your third statement is simply dead wrong: the "need" for fossil and for expanded evacuations stems from irrational thinking driven by green scaremongering (see papers I sent to Beppe below): the negative health outcome of both, through much higher risk from pollution and social hardship than from radiation, is clearly demonstrated, not to mention climate change. And actual doses are much lower (3-7x) than previous official estimates (not to mention those of green activists)…
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201311090063
Since you mention evacuations: green activism increases misery, death and disease not only in Japan, but also in Germany, through another "evacuation": that of electricity from 600'000 households…
http://www.kwh-preis.de/immer-mehr-stromsperren-in-deutschland
As a final remark, you were right in saying the study by IER that found PV was more risky than nuclear was coloured: risk was calculated for open-ground PV (see figure, "Freiflächenanlage"). The rooftop PV you mention carries a significant additional occupational risk!

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Zamm_
says:

A typical debating trick. Here's a similar one: "Ask the relatives of the victims of the Amagasaki accident how safe train travel is?".
...

A typical debating trick. Here's a similar one: "Ask the relatives of the victims of the Amagasaki accident how safe train travel is?".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_rail_crash

This trick relies on using a specific, high-profile occurrence to obscure average safety, which is the main measure that should drive policy. For trains:
http://econ.economicshelp.org/2011/02/economics-of-high-speed-rail-links.html

For NPPs and others, for example:
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/hkom/presseservice/pressemitteilungen/2013/130405_Deliverable_IER_to_GREENPEACE_DE.pdf
http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/publikationen/arbeitsberichte/Arbeitsbericht_11.pdf
(This time, you can't accuse me of cherry-picking - the stuff comes from an institute that did work for GP, as the 1st report attests.)

Post a comment

To post a comment you need to be signed in.

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@Zamm_ You *are* cherry-picking. First of all, an institute that also does work for Greenpeace can come with results in other studies that we don't back up (on which we also do not have quality control). Secondly, the study you refer to is inexact in as much as it does not indicate the uncertainty levels in its estimations, which, for instance, very much colour its estimation of PV effects and imho lead to an under-evaluation of the nuclear effects and therefore the validity of final conclusion in my opinion cannot be kept upright. Interestingly enough, the study counters the claim you are constantly bringing forward that nuclear would cause less deaths/GWh... Thirdly, the crux in the discussion is again the question around very small chances on very large impacts. We will always come back to that point. The uncertainty levels for nuclear are a lot larger than in the estimates around coal. I think there is something to say for the more qualitative approach of some within the German Ethics Commission that in case of small chances with large uncertainty on very large consequences, a more qualitative valuation is justified. You don't agree with that, I know.
You don't mind seeing another Fukushima or Chernobyl magnitude nuclear accident in future, Greenpeace does.
You don't believe that renewables and efficiency can deliver on the basis best current knowledge, Greenpeace has very good reasons to think that they can and that whether they will is more a case of political will.
You don't care about the technical and moral problems around nuclear waste, Greenpeace does.
You don't care about the increased potential of nuclear proliferation with ongoing reliance on nuclear power, Greenpeace does.

For the rest, I refer to Beppe's reply - thank you for that Beppe, very to the point.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Beppe
says:

If I had to make an educated guess, I would say that the survivors and the relatives of the victims of the Amagasaki incident are still taking the tra...

If I had to make an educated guess, I would say that the survivors and the relatives of the victims of the Amagasaki incident are still taking the train.
In contrast, people in Japan, and especially in Fukushima, changed their opinion and do not support any more "civil" nuclear power. Why is this the case?
See, the problem with nuclear disasters is that they last for a long time (Chernobyl is still affected by its disaster 25+ years later). Also, people might be concerned about genetic damage, which also stretches well beyond the accident itself.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Zamm_
says:

Historically, fairytales such as "homeopathy cures cancer", "the Earth is flat / was created a few thousand years ago", "GMOs...

Historically, fairytales such as "homeopathy cures cancer", "the Earth is flat / was created a few thousand years ago", "GMOs/vaccines/NPPs are inherently highly dangerous" (and other much worse fads) have always attracted a wide cult following, invariably causing death and misery…
Let's have a factual look.
- About the "death zone" around Chernobyl:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/49
- About the "high risk of genetic damage":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1683818
It just happens there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the NPP shutdowns in Germany and Japan are very bad in terms of increased health risk and climate, through pollution and CO2 from combustion - you just replace an existing but low risk with a higher one, which BTW includes genetic damage as well:
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/CRA/lbw/Lewtas_Review_2007.pdf
And it will also last for decades, with consequences that will dwarf those of Fukushima - and even Chernobyl, for that matter.
Fairytales or hard data, what to believe? It's your choice…

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@Zamm_ There we go again....

Your postulation that the German nuclear phase-out is replaced by fossil is dead wrong. And there is most certainly not a scientific consensus about that.

For the rest, you are throwing interesting things on one heap. I think that the claim that nuclear power plants are inherently risky (as is any concentration of highly toxic or highly radioactive material) can be upheld.

I think instead you could add the fairytale of "renewables cannot deliver" easily to your list, as well as the one that says that Chernobyl, Fukushima, TMI have shown that nuclear power is safe.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) Beppe
says:

Come on guys! The npp at Tianwan is "the safest in the world", or at least so are telling us IAEA (in charge of promoting nuclear power) and...

Come on guys! The npp at Tianwan is "the safest in the world", or at least so are telling us IAEA (in charge of promoting nuclear power) and Russia Today [source Wikipedia].
Zamm, do you have any idea why the UK did not buy Hinkley C from Russia and used Chinese workers to build it?

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

(Unregistered) AliShaw
says:

A bit misleading, when you consider that the vast majority of western nuclear reactors are Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR).

A project t...

A bit misleading, when you consider that the vast majority of western nuclear reactors are Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR).

A project that is going to be built to last a century having a fixed price for 35 years, I can most certainly live with that. The claim of buying for electricity at double the current price is rather misleading. In that inflation alone will continue to narrow the gap between the agreed price and the market value. The market value will rise significantly above the rate of inflation, unfortunately.

Nuclear power is on the right side of climate change, low carbon and will produce the huge volumes of electricity required. The waste will most likely be reprocessed, however with the perfection of metallic fuels we will soon see reactors running with no high level waste. These 3rd generation reactor are compatible with certain types of metallic fuel.

Germany are in the process of building new coal power stations, because of how badly renewable energy messed with the grid:

It seems strange to me that people choose to ignore these articles and the fact that legislation was passed by the germans to prevent blackouts,

Jan, Zamm he doesn't speak nonsense. However we have had this conversation before and I already know that you will ignore the facts. The UK doesn't remain bog on coal, they just closed down Cockenzie a few months ago.

A small request, if you reply with arguments about solar please remember to include load factor, capacity factor and efficiency. It is quite amusing to watch non-engineers discuss nuclear power like they have a clue about what it entails.

Post a comment

To post a comment you need to be signed in.

OPTIONAL: Sign in now and avoid filling in forms! Not registered?
Sign up here
or login via facebook or google.

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@AliShaw - Just for your information, the agreement between the UK Government and EdF includes an inflation correction, which means that with inflation, the strike-price will go up.
Your claim that Gen3 reactors are waste-wise comparable with Gen4 reactors makes me seriously doubt your engineering background. As does your claim that either Gen3 or Gen4 reactors could run without causing long lived high level waste.

The article from Pyory you link to completely backs up my earlier statements on the German coal myth: the remaining coal projects in Germany are legacy projects based on false assumptions, and "Since 2007, four coal and lignite projects have been postponed and a further 22 abandoned as a result of a combination of the reasons above". Therefore: "We conclude that further new project to build coal-fired generation in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain are all very unlikely".